Informed 365 Alternatives

5 of 11 products that share a software category or a capability term with Informed 365, matched on what their records document.

Alternative products to investigate

Products whose records share the most documented attributes with Informed 365: Exiger, Fair Supply, IntegrityNext, iPRO and Worldfavor (alphabetical, not a ranking).

Informed 365 record checked 2 October 2026. Sources and limitations in the Informed 365 profile · How candidates are matched · Already using Informed 365? What to check before switching

Informed 365's own record: categories, offline status, pricing and trial

Software categories: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Offline filter: Not yet classified. Pricing: Informed 365 has no verified published paid amount recorded (model: “Quote-based”). Trial: trial status not established.

Exiger
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Informed 365
Why listed: Categories shared with Informed 365: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Informed 365: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Informed 365's “Supplier risk scoring” and Exiger's “Nth-tier supplier identification and risk scoring”. Pricing: Exiger and Informed 365 have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Exiger's record (1 of 2 capabilities): “UFLPA-specific forced labour mapping”.
Against Informed 365: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Exiger, “Third-party onboarding and continuous monitoring”; Informed 365, “Customisable self-assessment questionnaires”. Integration capabilities: Exiger, “Product-level modern slavery data and integrations” (conditional); Informed 365, “Data integration and evidence upload” (conditional).
Fair Supply
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Informed 365
Why listed: Categories shared with Informed 365: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Informed 365: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Informed 365's “Modern slavery supplier assessment” and Fair Supply's “Modern slavery risk assessment”; Informed 365's “Supplier risk scoring” and Fair Supply's “Supplier self-assessment questionnaires and scoring”. Pricing: Fair Supply and Informed 365 have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Fair Supply's record: “Modelled multi-tier risk from names and spend”.
Against Informed 365: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Fair Supply, “Versioned audit trail”.
IntegrityNext
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Informed 365
Why listed: Categories shared with Informed 365: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Informed 365: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Pricing: IntegrityNext and Informed 365 have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in IntegrityNext's record: “Product-based supply chain mapping”.
Against Informed 365: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: IntegrityNext, “Forced labour screening and monitoring”. Integration capabilities: IntegrityNext, “Integrations and platform hosting” (documented); Informed 365, “Data integration and evidence upload” (conditional).
iPRO
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs
Why listed: Categories shared with Informed 365: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Informed 365: Modern Slavery, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Informed 365's “Modern slavery supplier assessment” and iPRO's “Modern slavery assessment tool”; Informed 365's “Supplier risk scoring” and iPRO's “Supplier risk categorisation and action plans”. Pricing: iPRO and Informed 365 have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in iPRO's record (2 of 3 capabilities): “Statement support by jurisdiction” and “Supplier risk profiles and draft statement”.
Worldfavor
Shares: Supply Chain Due Diligence, Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation
Compare View profile
Why listed, where it differs, against Informed 365
Why listed: Categories shared with Informed 365: Supply Chain Due Diligence. Tags shared with Informed 365: Supplier Due Diligence and Supplier Evaluation. Capability names sharing a term: Informed 365's “Supplier risk scoring” and Worldfavor's “Supplier risk screening”. Pricing: Worldfavor and Informed 365 have no verified published paid amount recorded.
Where it differs: Conditional in Worldfavor's record (2 of 3 capabilities): “AI enrichment and news monitoring” and “Multi-tier mapping”.
Against Informed 365: Documented, sharing no word with any capability, category or tag in the other record: Worldfavor, “Requirement packages and reminders”. Integration capabilities: Worldfavor, “ERP and reporting-tool integration” (conditional); Informed 365, “Data integration and evidence upload” (conditional).

Check the same evidence-led view from each candidate's starting point; its matched set may differ because the documented record differs.

Exiger alternatives Fair Supply alternatives IntegrityNext alternatives iPRO alternatives Worldfavor alternatives

6 more not listed. Browse the Supply Chain Due Diligence category.

Already using Informed 365? What its record leaves open

Limitations the Informed 365 profile records:

Relies substantially on supplier self-assessment
Pricing is not published

Available only under stated conditions or not documented (checked 2 October 2026): Data integration and evidence upload; Emissions module (Scope 1-3); Security and certification statements. Check each against the contract you hold.

Listed candidates that document a capability with a related name (confirm the scope in a demo):

“Emissions module (Scope 1-3)”: Worldfavor's “Supplier emissions data”.
“Security and certification statements”: Exiger's “Security certifications”, Fair Supply's “Information security certification” and iPRO's “Information security certification”.

Informed 365 evaluation checks, for every candidate

Questionnaire content and ownership: Request the modern slavery SAQ, including question count and language versions. Check who can edit questions after issue, and keep a copy of the version each supplier answered. Source
Scoring weights and explainability: The service page describes scoring from inherent risk, supplier responses and other sources with adjustable weightings. Change a weighting in a test and record which suppliers move band, and who can approve such changes. Source
Inherent risk data sources: The pages refer to industry and country ratings and to third-party data without naming every provider. Ask for the sources, refresh frequency and how a rating is shown in a supplier record. Source
Contradicting evidence alongside SAQ answers: Upload a test document that conflicts with a supplier answer. Check whether the record shows the conflict, who reviewed it and how it affects the score. Retain a screenshot of the resulting entry. Source
Integration feasibility and data handling: The pages describe an API-agnostic approach subject to an API being available. List your procurement, finance and sanctions systems, ask which are in use today, and request written scope and cost for each connection. Source
Consortium boundaries: The service page describes consortium monthly meetings, shared templates and group audits. Ask how supplier data is partitioned between members, what is visible to other members and how a member exits. Source

Leaving Informed 365: what to plan for

Keep the questionnaire exactly as suppliers saw it. Answers are meaningless later without the question wording and the language version each supplier used, and a fresh tool may ask suppliers to answer again. Plan the message to them in advance, and accept that year-on-year comparison will break where the new question set differs from the old.
Archive the weights and rating sources behind each band before you lose access. Suppliers are placed in bands from inherent risk, their own answers and other data, with adjustable weightings, and the pages do not describe the model behind the ratings. If a board asks next year why a supplier was medium risk, only your saved settings can answer.
List every outside feed that reaches the platform. The pages describe an approach that brings in sanctions, credit, anti-money-laundering and spend data, and say integration depends on an API being set up with the other system. Each feed is a connection to rebuild and a feasibility question for the new product, so ask what each costs before assuming it carries over.

Who may have reason to stay with Informed 365

An organisation inside an industry group has a reason beyond features. The consortium option shares audits and supplier assessments, with templates and meetings run for the group, so moving alone may leave you outside work your peers rely on. Ask the group whether its members can use another tool, and how a member leaves, before judging the new product on its own.
A switch will not cure the weakness of self-reporting. Questionnaires ask suppliers to describe themselves, and the record lists heavy reliance on that as a limit of this product. A questionnaire-based tool is likely to share it, so the useful question is how a candidate records audits and worker signals next to the answers, not whether it has a longer form.
Check how much else of the platform you use. The site lists separate services for business intelligence, emissions, risk governance and a single source of truth, and this profile covers only the supplier assessment service. A team that also reports emissions through the same vendor faces a larger move than the questionnaire work suggests, and should price both halves.

What to test in a trial of a replacement for Informed 365

Plant a contradiction on purpose. Issue the questionnaire to two fictional suppliers, one in a translated form, then upload a document that conflicts with one answer. Look at whether the record shows the conflict, who reviewed it and whether the band changed, and keep a screenshot of the entry so the result can be compared across candidates.
Test the weighting controls with a real supplier list, not a demonstration list. Change one weight, write down which suppliers move band, and ask who may approve such a change. Then run the same list through your current tool and explain every difference by input, since a band that cannot be explained is hard to defend in a statement.
Ask each candidate which reporting regimes it maps and who keeps that mapping up to date, then check a sample output against the criteria you report under. Also list your procurement, finance and sanctions systems and ask for a written scope and cost for each link, since feasibility is conditional on an API in the other system.

Conditions and sources in the Informed 365 profile · Recorded commercial terms